Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?


Off-Topic Discussions

4,051 to 4,068 of 4,068 << first < prev | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Battery, or other, storage is irrelevant there though as it is an issue for both. That continues to not make any case for wind being 'expensive' now.
Yeah because intermittent power sources never incur costs over the same situation sans intermittency.

The fact that there are other costs is irrelevant to the question of whether we should compare "solar + battery" to wind without batteries. If you are going to bring batteries in to it to deal with intermittent generation then that is just as much an issue for wind as it is for solar.

Quark Blast wrote:
The rate of wind installation has peaked globally

Wind installations grew by about 19% last year as compared to 2018, and were expected to grow another ~26% to a new record high this year. The pandemic will certainly cut into that, but a new record is still possible this year... and will certainly happen once economic activity picks up again.

Thus, you'll maybe get away with this claim for a year or two if the pandemic keeps construction down, but after that it'll prove as obviously false as your previous prediction that wind power was reaching its limits... five years ago.

How do you maintain this belief that wind power is expensive / slowing in the face of observed reality continually demonstrating otherwise?

Quark Blast wrote:
and will continue to suffer under pressure from solar. Wind really does suck, comparatively.

Compared to future solar, sure. Compared to fossil fuels, as implied by your original claim that wind power is "prohibitively expensive", just no.

Quark Blast wrote:
If you're alive to see that time, you best hope you're wrong.

Of course I'd hope that Russia will become less of a fossil fuel backed kleptocracy over the next ten years, but I wouldn't bet on it.


Quark Blast wrote:
Sorry can't help you. And apparently neither can anyone else on these forums. Not even the most reasonable thejeff. Sad.

Don't drag me into this. I can't make any more sense out your nonsense than he can, while his posts are generally clear.

His parsing style is necessary to nail down any meaning from you and not letting you get away with claiming you were right about vague and mostly incorrect predictions or claiming support from sources that don't say what you're using them to argue.

Personally, I've given up. If CB wants to continue the exercise in futility, that's his right.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

New EIA report out today

Total US energy consumption (i.e. not just electricity) from coal fell below that of renewable energy last year for the first time since burning wood was the primary source of energy production (~1885).

US coal consumption should drop another ~90% and then bottom out around 2030... unless we find ways to reduce or eliminate its use in steel making and a few other niche areas by then.


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Sorry can't help you. And apparently neither can anyone else on these forums. Not even the most reasonable thejeff. Sad.
Don't drag me into this. I can't make any more sense out your nonsense than he can, while his posts are generally clear.

Drag you into this? Are you so weak?

:D

This is a public forum with no obligations to participate. Your posts, all of them, are all on you.

thejeff wrote:
His parsing style is necessary to nail down any meaning from you and not letting you get away with claiming you were right about vague and mostly incorrect predictions or claiming support from sources that don't say what you're using them to argue.

Well his parsing style misconstrues my meaning far more often than not.

thejeff wrote:
Personally, I've given up. If CB wants to continue the exercise in futility, that's his right.

Good idea. Giving up that is. I'll join you (metaphorically).

Final clause:
There is another reason I believe wind power to be generally a boondoggle. One of my professors* made the comment, "very astute observation", about a minor point in the conclusion of a term paper/project. I can't quote myself exactly but basically I said that over the lifetime of most wind power installations, not counting subsidies, they will remain a loss unless/until power rates go up to compensate.

In Germany they raised the power rates to compensate. Way to screw the little guy!

After the class was over I tried looking into studies regarding the cost-benefit of wind power over the lifetime of the installation. I've likely posted links to most of them up thread. There aren't many.

Later that school year, I asked her, "Why aren't there very many?"

She replied {paraphrasing}, "Asking certain questions will not enhance one's career." And she didn't elaborate any further.

* She is a minor contributing editor to the IPCC and studied under one of the "major" editors for her PhD, so she knows her stuff.


CBDunkerson wrote:

New EIA report out today

Total US energy consumption (i.e. not just electricity) from coal fell below that of renewable energy last year for the first time since burning wood was the primary source of energy production (~1885).

US coal consumption should drop another ~90% and then bottom out around 2030... unless we find ways to reduce or eliminate its use in steel making and a few other niche areas by then.

Woo Hoo!! Way to go Natural Gas!*

:D

* Been kick'n Coals Ass for two decades and counting! Uhh!


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Sorry can't help you. And apparently neither can anyone else on these forums. Not even the most reasonable thejeff. Sad.
Don't drag me into this. I can't make any more sense out your nonsense than he can, while his posts are generally clear.

Drag you into this? Are you so weak?

:D

This is a public forum with no obligations to participate. Your posts, all of them, are all on you.

My posts are on me. I would appreciate it if you would not reference me in your attacks on others as if I shared your issues with them.

As far as I can tell, CB is reading your words correctly in most cases. If that doesn't match your meaning, perhaps that's more of a problem with your writing than his parsing.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
I can't quote myself exactly but basically I said that over the lifetime of most wind power installations, not counting subsidies, they will remain a loss unless/until power rates go up to compensate.

Which would have been true five years ago. Now, utilities buying wind power pay less than they would for almost any coal or nuclear, and most natural gas.

Quark Blast wrote:
In Germany they raised the power rates to compensate. Way to screw the little guy!

Not accurate. They added a rate surcharge to fund construction of renewable energy and shut down of nuclear power. When they started that process renewable electricity cost more than coal (though not nuclear), but as the process has continued the newer renewable installations now cost less.

Also, as I noted the last time you made these false claims, the 'little guy' is fine with this arrangement. The surcharge and transition enjoy overwhelming public support.

Quark Blast wrote:

After the class was over I tried looking into studies regarding the cost-benefit of wind power over the lifetime of the installation. I've likely posted links to most of them up thread. There aren't many.

Later that school year, I asked her, "Why aren't there very many?"

She replied {paraphrasing}, "Asking certain questions will not enhance one's career." And she didn't elaborate any further.

Odd. Any remotely knowledgeable, or Google capable, person should have been able to point you to many studies which have been done on this subject. Here are some recent ones;

Lazard 2019
IRENA 2018
EIA 2020
IEA 2018
BNEF 2020

As you might guess from the years in the titles, several of these analyses are updated annually... so, not exactly rare. I'd consider most of these sources relatively unbiased, though somewhat conservative in their future estimates.

The government funded EIA and IEA, on the other hand, have a fairly clear anti-renewables bias, as can be seen from this 2016 IEA report which projected onshore wind power dropping to a $50/MWh median LCOE in 2050... when actually it got there earlier this year. There are also laughably bad graphs of EIA and IEA projections of solar installations vs actual installations. Conversely, the EIA keeps stubbornly insisting that US coal consumption will return to growth.

Despite that, both the EIA and IEA do concede the current low cost of wind power.

So on one 'side' we've got numerous studies, even from sources clearly biased against renewables, saying that wind power costs are low... and on the other we've got your personal beliefs anecdotally supported by an unspecified single 'expert'.


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Sorry can't help you. And apparently neither can anyone else on these forums. Not even the most reasonable thejeff. Sad.
Don't drag me into this. I can't make any more sense out your nonsense than he can, while his posts are generally clear.

Drag you into this? Are you so weak?

:D

This is a public forum with no obligations to participate. Your posts, all of them, are all on you.

My posts are on me. I would appreciate it if you would not reference me in your attacks on others as if I shared your issues with them.

As far as I can tell, CB is reading your words correctly in most cases. If that doesn't match your meaning, perhaps that's more of a problem with your writing than his parsing.

I've specifically pointed out that in general, though not of late, you actually read-to-understand my posts. CB and the metalhead seem to read-to-misconstrue my point purposefully ('cause nobody who can type a sentence can really be that dumb). CB especially does this more than half the time and, given that he parses each of my posts multiple different ways and responds to each little sub-section as if it weren't embedded in the whole, it means virtually every post of his grossly misconstrues my intended argument.

My most recent reference to you (quoted above herein) was implicitly calling back to the recent nearly 3-page ####-fest between the metalhead and CB up thread. Short summary of events:
I was not at all involved in that exchange, you attempted to step in talking sense, and both of them proceeded to ignore your helpful contribution and continue the ####-fest unabated. I LOL'd for days watching their MAD idiocy.

No, I dare say, you rarely agree with me and I'm totally fine with that. My main point is:
CB and the metalhead behave the exact same way whether I'm in the discussion or not.

I intend to take-up your self-imposed advice (namely, "Personally, I've given up.") and spend my time online in better ways. An easy thing to do as anything from sleeping to armpit-farting the national anthem via TikTok is time better spent than trying to have a discussion with either of them. Q.E.D.


Yes, and I was annoyed by that exchange and then you started posting again and, as I believe I said at the time, reminded me what incoherency really was.

My point wasn't that agree with CB's arguments rather than yours, but that I generally agree with his parsing of your posts and why he does it.

And again, you are using me to support your attacks on CB and IT and I do not agree with you there. Either on the topic of climate change or the topics of arguments on this board.

It is however a nice parallel to your common tactic citing sources that don't actually say what you claim they do.


thejeff wrote:

Yes, and I was annoyed by that exchange and then you started posting again and, as I believe I said at the time, reminded me what incoherency really was.

My point wasn't that agree with CB's arguments rather than yours, but that I generally agree with his parsing of your posts and why he does it.

There's a multifaceted reason it seems incoherent to you.

1) You pay attention to the mud that CB's frenetic parsing throws up.
2) You pay attention to the entirely irrelevant "what if's" that the other guy tries to derail the thread onto.
3) You likely didn't read my cited sources, if at all, with the idea in mind that I might be focusing on facts that aren't the main purpose of the source but are nonetheless germane to my argument.

thejeff wrote:
And again, you are using me to support your attacks on CB and IT and I do not agree with you there. Either on the topic of climate change or the topics of arguments on this board.

Might I point out for your edification that, logically, you don't have to agree with me and yet your contributions to this thread can (at least in part) directly support my contention that CB and the other guy generate their own total ####-show without any help from me whatsoever.

thejeff wrote:

It is however a nice parallel to your common tactic citing sources that don't actually say what you claim they do.

See 3) above in my first portion of this response.

.

Stay safe, avoid handshakes and I'll be back once the global chaos calms down enough to make a useful prognostication about our future climate.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

My main point is:

CB and the metalhead behave the exact same way whether I'm in the discussion or not.

Indeed, I like to think that I behave the same way regardless of who is in the discussion.

That is, I generally try to respond to interesting points with further discussion, false information with corrections, and rude behavior with disdain.

Your joy at the rare instance where you were not the sole subject of dispute from everyone is understandable, but doesn't make your lack of basic understanding of the topic, failures of logic, or obnoxious behavior any less.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

My main point is:

CB and the metalhead behave the exact same way whether I'm in the discussion or not.

Indeed, I like to think that I behave the same way regardless of who is in the discussion.

That is, I generally try to respond to interesting points with further discussion, false information with corrections, and rude behavior with disdain.

Your joy at the rare instance where you were not the sole subject of dispute from everyone is understandable, but doesn't make your lack of basic understanding of the topic, failures of logic, or obnoxious behavior any less.

It's funny that you can't see your own contribution to the mess that could be a useful discussion. The fact that I was none of the contribution to the ####### contest between you and the metalhead is sufficient proof that I'm not necessary in order for you to be a total #######. That neither you nor the metalhead would listen when the other person attempted a thoughtful and fair brokerage of your apparent disagreement also speaks in my favor. That no one else on this forum besides you three have the problem with me that others do is to my favor as well.

But an argument from reason is not something you seem open to if at first you believe you disagree with the other. Hence I am wasting electrons and pixels again here.

Back to the OP (more or less):
The whole issue with wind power is similar to the whole virus issue (see the "spoiler" section below). Lots of experts have opinions, and there is a consensus, but long term money isn't going for wind. Short term money? Sure because of subsidies and the whole "bandwagon" thing it's super easy to make bank on building boondoggles. So they get built.

Right now China, domestically and through it's Belt and Road Initiative, is going ape#### building all sorts of crap to keep people employed. There is in fact some long term thinking in the infrastructure they're building out but mostly it's very short term. Even, and this is a stupid as humanity can get, building out as yet an uncertain but large amount of coal fired capacity (100's of GW).

How the Coronavirus 'facts' have been handled by the experts:
An express "informed" opinion that no travel bans should be issued

An express "informed" opinion that the Coronavirus can't be transmitted from person to person

An express "informed" opinion that herd immunity is a thing but won't be until 70%-80% of the population is exposed

Therefore, Sweden is DOOMED!

Oh wait, the travel bans were established too late

Oh wait, the Coronavirus can be transmitted person to person

An express "informed" opinion that face masks should not be worn

Oh wait, the face masks should be worn. Ha! Who knew?

Huh? The number of people infected is much higher than thought

Huh? The death rate is much higher than thought or is it the death rate is lower than thought? Hard to tell.

Oh wait, perhaps herd immunity maybe isn't a thing

No, the number of people infected is much lower than previously thought

But hey, Sweden seems to be doing alright. Better than some, worse than others but a closer to herd immunity than anyplace else

These experts are ####### geniuses and I'm so glad they're calling the shots.
:D


Sweden launches probe into handling of pandemic... because it went well?

Oh wait, government probes usually come after things don't go well.


First of all my claim was this:
"Sweden seems to be doing alright. Better than some, worse than others but closer to herd immunity than anyplace else".

Sweden is halfway to herd immunity (assuming it's a thing) and the US of A is at ~5%.

Per Capita Deaths (/100k):

Belguim = 83.05
France = 43.05
Sweden = 43.24
US of A = 21.14

.

Case Fatality Rate:

Belguim = 16.2%
France = 15.2%
Sweden = 11.6%
USA of A = 5.8%

Sweden has long since acknowledged it could've done a better job protecting elder communities. Their demographic also skews old relative to most countries, so they had that working against their numbers.

Still they did better at proteting the elderly than the state of NY and NYC <-- Talk about a total #### show! Nothing like sending COVID-19+ patients back from the hospital to the retirement home. Who the #### made that decision?


Source for "halfway to herd immunity"? Numbers I've seen have been in the 10-15% exposure range, not the 30+ you'd need to be halfway.

If we listen to the experts, which is obviously foolish because they've been wrong.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
That neither you nor the metalhead would listen when the other person attempted a thoughtful and fair brokerage of your apparent disagreement also speaks in my favor.

Nonsense. I listened to, and discussed the issues with, everyone who commented. Again, that for once people disagreed with someone other than you is not the great revelation you seem to think.

Quark Blast wrote:
That no one else on this forum besides you three have the problem with me that others do is to my favor as well.

Do I really need to start citing links to show how very far from reality that "three" is?

Quark Blast wrote:
The whole issue with wind power is similar to the whole virus issue (see the "spoiler" section below). Lots of experts have opinions, and there is a consensus, but long term money isn't going for wind. Short term money? Sure because of subsidies and the whole "bandwagon" thing it's super easy to make bank on building boondoggles. So they get built.

Again, just plain false.

Global current construction ('short term money'), investments in future deployments ('medium term money'), and investments in research and design improvements ('long term money') all heavily favor wind and solar over fossil fuels.

Quark Blast wrote:
These experts are ####### geniuses and I'm so glad they're calling the shots.

A: You grossly over-simplify and misrepresent the facts

B: For the most part medical (and climate) experts aren't 'calling the shots'... politicians and wealthy people are
C: Funny how you go from claiming that experts support your position to expressing such contempt for them when it is proven that they don't


CBDunkerson wrote:


Quark Blast wrote:
That no one else on this forum besides you three have the problem with me that others do is to my favor as well.
Do I really need to start citing links to show how very far from reality that "three" is?

Well, it's been a while now since anyone but the 4 of us has posted in this thread

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
Well, it's been a while now since anyone but the 4 of us has posted in this thread

So, overall far more than three of the other people "on this forum" have a problem with him, but for the recent history of this thread it is 'only' 100%?

Yeah, that sounds fair.

4,051 to 4,068 of 4,068 << first < prev | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.